Marvin Ammori is a leading First Amendment lawyer and Internet policy expert. He was instrumental to the adoption of network neutrality rules in the US and abroad–having been perhaps the nation’s leading legal advocate advancing network neutrality–and also instrumental to the defeat of the SOPA and PIPA copyright/censorship bills.

Before starting the Ammori Group, he was a law professor at Nebraska, where he led a program working with U.S. CyberCommand to educate the military’s first generation of “cyberwar” lawyers. His main academic contributions have been in First Amendment theory and doctrine. He left academia to return to Washington, DC, to be a participant again, rather than a spectator, in shaping public policy to advance innovation and free speech.

Before being a law professor, he was a leading advocate for civil liberties and consumer rights as the head lawyer of Free Press. In that capacity, and as the lead lawyer on the seminal Comcast/BitTorrent case, he was perhaps the nation’s leading lawyer on network neutrality, the nation’s most debated Internet policy issue and amongst the nation’s most important recent policy debates. During 2007 and 2008, he was a technology policy advisor to the Obama campaign and to the Presidential Transition.

Next Friday, February 10, the Stanford Technology Law Review is holding its annual symposium, and this year's topic is an important one: First Amendment Challenges in the Digital Age. Of the three panels, one is devoted to privacy and another to copyright. The third is devoted to a long, ambitious law review article ... written by me.

Pages

Comcast Corp. v. FCC is a 2010 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over Comcast’s Internet service under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over Comcast’s network management polices and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software.

In 2005, on the same day the FCC re-classified DSL service and effectively reduced the regulatory obligations of DSL providers, the FCC announced its unanimous view that consumers are entitled to certain rights and expectations with respect to their broadband service, including the right to:

Today, the FCC is voting on its third major net neutrality opinion since 2008.

The last two failed in court. So you might wonder: why would this one survive? Because, if reports are right, the FCC finally learned its lesson. And that lesson is so simple–the FCC will win in court if it relies on its strongest basis for authority given to it by Congress, called Title II.

Tomorrow, the FCC is voting on its long-awaited net neutrality rule. Everyone is hoping for a huge, enormous victory for the open Internet we all know and love. The FCC appears ready to forbid phone and cable giants (like Comcast and Verizon) from blocking websites, throttling them, or selling various slow lanes. The FCC will also build this rule on rock not sand—it will rely on its strongest legal authority known as Title II and therefore stand up in court. The devil will be in the details, but the general direction is very positive.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported on increasing dissatisfaction that the big movie studios are having with the MPAA, their big trade association. And it’s no wonder. While the six major studios pour 20 million dollars each into the MPAA every year—so that the MPAA can focus on the future of the movie business—recent reports reveal that the MPAA is instead focused on convoluted, Rube Goldberg-like political strategies far removed from filmmaking.

Tom Wheeler, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, recently announced support for strong net neutrality rules grounded in the FCC’s strongest legal authority, known as “Title II.” Following Wheeler’s announcement, average Americans, entrepreneurs, and civil libertarians cheered the use of Title II. But those supporting the cable industry’s assault on rules are now crying foul.

For more than a year, alongside immigration and an oil pipeline, net neutrality has been one of the biggest policy debates in the nation, prompting thousands of articles, late-night comedy skits, manySenate

Pages

"“The tech community is full of immigrants who started their companies here, so many of them were founded by immigrants,” said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer well-known for his work on net neutrality issues who’s general counsel for Hyperloop One, a tech company backed by Elon Musk that’s working on an ultra-fast transit system. “So if you’re anti-immigrant you’re not going to be popular in (Silicon) Valley. If you’re anti-gay you’re not going to be popular in the Valley. ... So it does put Republicans at a disadvantage even if they’re progressive on some tech issues.”

"Currently, the clause says the company can pay either the fair market value at the time of repurchase or the price paid by the employee, whichever is lower. At the recent meetings, in response to a question from an employee, general counsel Marvin Ammori said the board plans to authorise changes to that provision, according to people familiar with the matter."

"This decision is huge for the FCC's authority," said Marvin Ammori, a longtime net-neutrality advocate. "We won big on everything." That sets the stage for what Ammori and several analysts see as the next big battle. That will likely involve "zero rating" — the practice of exempting preferred video services from customer data caps."

"In his last ruling, Judge Tatel suggested the FCC could find better legal footing through Title II. “In the previous case, he provided a legal road map for the FCC to follow,” Marvin Ammori, a lawyer and net neutrality activist, told WSJ."

"“Judge Tatel’s inclusion on the panel is probably good for net neutrality advocates,” said Marvin Ammori, a lawyer and net neutrality activist. “In the previous case, he provided a legal road map for the FCC to follow. The FCC carefully followed Judge Tatel’s road map. And nobody would understand that better than Mr. Tatel himself.”"

The Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 14 through Saturday, November 16 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention is: Textualism and the Role of Judges.

For almost a decade, network neutrality has been among the most contentious and high-profile subjects of debate in Internet policy. This debate has taken place in government agencies, legislatures, courts, and the public square, in countries around the world. In the U.S., both sides assume the mantle of free expression.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to approve ​​new net neutrality regulations. If the new rules are adopted, internet service will be regulated like a public utility, a move that will prevent companies from manipulating internet traffic.

It will be a major victory both for President Obama and for a swarm of internet companies that vocally supported net neutrality​—everything from Netflix to Twitter​, to Mozilla, Tumblr, and Etsy.

But almost 4 million people wrote to a US federal agency this year, demanding it. That agency has never received even a third as many comments. And samples show that a full 99 percent supported net neutrality.

What exactly can be so popular?

The short answer is: the Internet. The Internet is awesome and it’s awesome because of net neutrality.